Gatifloxacin versus ceftriaxone for uncomplicated enteric fever in Nepal: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial.
Because treatment with third-generation cephalosporins is associated with slow clinical improvement and high relapse burden for enteric fever, whereas the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin is associated with rapid fever clearance and low relapse burden, we postulated that gatifloxacin would be superior t...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Journal article |
| Idioma: | English |
| Publicado em: |
Lancet
2016
|
| _version_ | 1826273344740130816 |
|---|---|
| author | Arjyal, A Basnyat, B Nhan, H Koirala, S Giri, A Joshi, N Shakya, M Pathak, K Mahat, S Prajapati, S Adhikari, N Thapa, R Merson, L Gajurel, D Lamsal, K Lamsal, D Yadav, B Shah, G Shrestha, P Dongol, S Karkey, A Thompson, C Thieu, N Thanh, D Baker, S Thwaites, G Wolbers, M Dolecek, C |
| author_facet | Arjyal, A Basnyat, B Nhan, H Koirala, S Giri, A Joshi, N Shakya, M Pathak, K Mahat, S Prajapati, S Adhikari, N Thapa, R Merson, L Gajurel, D Lamsal, K Lamsal, D Yadav, B Shah, G Shrestha, P Dongol, S Karkey, A Thompson, C Thieu, N Thanh, D Baker, S Thwaites, G Wolbers, M Dolecek, C |
| author_sort | Arjyal, A |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Because treatment with third-generation cephalosporins is associated with slow clinical improvement and high relapse burden for enteric fever, whereas the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin is associated with rapid fever clearance and low relapse burden, we postulated that gatifloxacin would be superior to the cephalosporin ceftriaxone in treating enteric fever.We did an open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial at two hospitals in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal. Eligible participants were children (aged 2-13 years) and adult (aged 14-45 years) with criteria for suspected enteric fever (body temperature ≥38·0°C for ≥4 days without a focus of infection). We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) without stratification to 7 days of either oral gatifloxacin (10 mg/kg per day) or intravenous ceftriaxone (60 mg/kg up to 2 g per day for patients aged 2-13 years, or 2 g per day for patients aged ≥14 years). The randomisation list was computer-generated using blocks of four and six. The primary outcome was a composite of treatment failure, defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following: fever clearance time of more than 7 days after treatment initiation; the need for rescue treatment on day 8; microbiological failure (ie, blood cultures positive for Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi, or Paratyphi A, B, or C) on day 8; or relapse or disease-related complications within 28 days of treatment initiation. We did the analyses in the modified intention-to-treat population, and subpopulations with either confirmed blood-culture positivity, or blood-culture negativity. The trial was powered to detect an increase of 20% in the risk of failure. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01421693, and is now closed.Between Sept 18, 2011, and July 14, 2014, we screened 725 patients for eligibility. On July 14, 2014, the trial was stopped early by the data safety and monitoring board because S Typhi strains with high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin and gatifloxacin had emerged. At this point, 239 were in the modified intention-to-treat population (120 assigned to gatifloxacin, 119 to ceftriaxone). 18 (15%) patients who received gatifloxacin had treatment failure, compared with 19 (16%) who received ceftriaxone (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·55-1·98]; p=0·91). In the culture-confirmed population, 16 (26%) of 62 patients who received gatifloxacin failed treatment, compared with four (7%) of 54 who received ceftriaxone (HR 0·24 [95% CI 0·08-0·73]; p=0·01). Treatment failure was associated with the emergence of S Typhi exhibiting resistance against fluoroquinolones, requiring the trial to be stopped. By contrast, in patients with a negative blood culture, only two (3%) of 58 who received gatifloxacin failed treatment versus 15 (23%) of 65 who received ceftriaxone (HR 7·50 [95% CI 1·71-32·80]; p=0·01). A similar number of non-serious adverse events occurred in each treatment group, and no serious events were reported.Our results suggest that fluoroquinolones should no longer be used for treatment of enteric fever in Nepal. Additionally, under our study conditions, ceftriaxone was suboptimum in a high proportion of patients with culture-negative enteric fever. Since antimicrobials, specifically fluoroquinolones, are one of the only routinely used control measures for enteric fever, the assessment of novel diagnostics, new treatment options, and use of existing vaccines and development of next-generation vaccines are now a high priority.Wellcome Trust and Li Ka Shing Foundation. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T22:26:46Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:56ea0d6e-a11f-4a6c-8198-1748a7d34c51 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T22:26:46Z |
| publishDate | 2016 |
| publisher | Lancet |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:56ea0d6e-a11f-4a6c-8198-1748a7d34c512022-03-26T16:53:30ZGatifloxacin versus ceftriaxone for uncomplicated enteric fever in Nepal: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:56ea0d6e-a11f-4a6c-8198-1748a7d34c51EnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordLancet2016Arjyal, ABasnyat, BNhan, HKoirala, SGiri, AJoshi, NShakya, MPathak, KMahat, SPrajapati, SAdhikari, NThapa, RMerson, LGajurel, DLamsal, KLamsal, DYadav, BShah, GShrestha, PDongol, SKarkey, AThompson, CThieu, NThanh, DBaker, SThwaites, GWolbers, MDolecek, CBecause treatment with third-generation cephalosporins is associated with slow clinical improvement and high relapse burden for enteric fever, whereas the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin is associated with rapid fever clearance and low relapse burden, we postulated that gatifloxacin would be superior to the cephalosporin ceftriaxone in treating enteric fever.We did an open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial at two hospitals in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal. Eligible participants were children (aged 2-13 years) and adult (aged 14-45 years) with criteria for suspected enteric fever (body temperature ≥38·0°C for ≥4 days without a focus of infection). We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) without stratification to 7 days of either oral gatifloxacin (10 mg/kg per day) or intravenous ceftriaxone (60 mg/kg up to 2 g per day for patients aged 2-13 years, or 2 g per day for patients aged ≥14 years). The randomisation list was computer-generated using blocks of four and six. The primary outcome was a composite of treatment failure, defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following: fever clearance time of more than 7 days after treatment initiation; the need for rescue treatment on day 8; microbiological failure (ie, blood cultures positive for Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi, or Paratyphi A, B, or C) on day 8; or relapse or disease-related complications within 28 days of treatment initiation. We did the analyses in the modified intention-to-treat population, and subpopulations with either confirmed blood-culture positivity, or blood-culture negativity. The trial was powered to detect an increase of 20% in the risk of failure. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01421693, and is now closed.Between Sept 18, 2011, and July 14, 2014, we screened 725 patients for eligibility. On July 14, 2014, the trial was stopped early by the data safety and monitoring board because S Typhi strains with high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin and gatifloxacin had emerged. At this point, 239 were in the modified intention-to-treat population (120 assigned to gatifloxacin, 119 to ceftriaxone). 18 (15%) patients who received gatifloxacin had treatment failure, compared with 19 (16%) who received ceftriaxone (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·55-1·98]; p=0·91). In the culture-confirmed population, 16 (26%) of 62 patients who received gatifloxacin failed treatment, compared with four (7%) of 54 who received ceftriaxone (HR 0·24 [95% CI 0·08-0·73]; p=0·01). Treatment failure was associated with the emergence of S Typhi exhibiting resistance against fluoroquinolones, requiring the trial to be stopped. By contrast, in patients with a negative blood culture, only two (3%) of 58 who received gatifloxacin failed treatment versus 15 (23%) of 65 who received ceftriaxone (HR 7·50 [95% CI 1·71-32·80]; p=0·01). A similar number of non-serious adverse events occurred in each treatment group, and no serious events were reported.Our results suggest that fluoroquinolones should no longer be used for treatment of enteric fever in Nepal. Additionally, under our study conditions, ceftriaxone was suboptimum in a high proportion of patients with culture-negative enteric fever. Since antimicrobials, specifically fluoroquinolones, are one of the only routinely used control measures for enteric fever, the assessment of novel diagnostics, new treatment options, and use of existing vaccines and development of next-generation vaccines are now a high priority.Wellcome Trust and Li Ka Shing Foundation. |
| spellingShingle | Arjyal, A Basnyat, B Nhan, H Koirala, S Giri, A Joshi, N Shakya, M Pathak, K Mahat, S Prajapati, S Adhikari, N Thapa, R Merson, L Gajurel, D Lamsal, K Lamsal, D Yadav, B Shah, G Shrestha, P Dongol, S Karkey, A Thompson, C Thieu, N Thanh, D Baker, S Thwaites, G Wolbers, M Dolecek, C Gatifloxacin versus ceftriaxone for uncomplicated enteric fever in Nepal: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial. |
| title | Gatifloxacin versus ceftriaxone for uncomplicated enteric fever in Nepal: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial. |
| title_full | Gatifloxacin versus ceftriaxone for uncomplicated enteric fever in Nepal: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial. |
| title_fullStr | Gatifloxacin versus ceftriaxone for uncomplicated enteric fever in Nepal: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Gatifloxacin versus ceftriaxone for uncomplicated enteric fever in Nepal: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial. |
| title_short | Gatifloxacin versus ceftriaxone for uncomplicated enteric fever in Nepal: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial. |
| title_sort | gatifloxacin versus ceftriaxone for uncomplicated enteric fever in nepal an open label two centre randomised controlled trial |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT arjyala gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT basnyatb gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT nhanh gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT koiralas gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT giria gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT joshin gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT shakyam gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT pathakk gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT mahats gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT prajapatis gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT adhikarin gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT thapar gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT mersonl gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT gajureld gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT lamsalk gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT lamsald gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT yadavb gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT shahg gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT shresthap gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT dongols gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT karkeya gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT thompsonc gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT thieun gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT thanhd gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT bakers gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT thwaitesg gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT wolbersm gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial AT dolecekc gatifloxacinversusceftriaxoneforuncomplicatedentericfeverinnepalanopenlabeltwocentrerandomisedcontrolledtrial |